Whether a critic-turned-believer can sway others to change their views depends on various factors, including the critic's credibility, the strength of their arguments, and the receptiveness of the audience. In the case of genetically modified foods (GMFs), there have been instances where critics who became advocates have influenced public opinion.

One notable example is the conversion of molecular biologist Dr. Pamela Ronald from a skeptic to a supporter of GMFs. Ronald was initially opposed to genetic engineering, but after conducting research on pest-resistant rice, she became convinced of the potential benefits of GMFs in addressing food security and sustainability challenges.

Ronald's journey from skeptic to advocate involved a personal transformation based on scientific evidence and firsthand experience. This transformation gave her a unique perspective and credibility when discussing GMFs, allowing her to effectively communicate the benefits and address concerns.

Ronald's advocacy included engaging with the public through lectures, interviews, and publications, providing scientific information and addressing common misconceptions about GMFs. Her efforts contributed to a shift in the perception of GMFs among certain audiences, particularly those who were open to evidence-based discussions and willing to reconsider their previous views.

However, it's essential to note that changing public opinion on complex and controversial issues like GMFs can be challenging. Many individuals form deeply held beliefs and attitudes based on various sources of information, emotions, and personal values. While the conversion of a critic-turned-believer can influence some people, it may not have a widespread or immediate impact on the entire population.

The effectiveness of a critic-turned-believer in swaying public opinion can be influenced by several factors, such as:

1. Credibility: The extent to which the individual is perceived as knowledgeable, trustworthy, and unbiased.

2. Clear and persuasive communication: The ability to effectively convey complex scientific information in an understandable and engaging manner.

3. Empathy and understanding: Acknowledging and addressing the concerns and values of those who hold different viewpoints.

4. Openness to opposing arguments: Demonstrating a willingness to consider alternative perspectives and engaging in respectful dialogue.

In the case of GMFs, there is still significant debate and varying levels of acceptance across different societies and cultures. Some people may be more receptive to the arguments of a critic-turned-believer, while others may remain skeptical or opposed based on their own assessments of risks and benefits.

Overall, while a critic-turned-believer can potentially sway others, their influence may be limited by various factors, including the complexity of the issue, individual beliefs, and the prevailing societal discourse on the subject.